Talk:Ilhan Omar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malix27 (article contribs).

National Legal and Policy Center complaint / divorce paper claims.

I don't feel that the recently-added material here passes WP:DUE for inclusion right now relative to Omar's stature. One is a complaint by the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative advocacy group; a complaint like that doesn't automatically have much weight until / unless some event confirms it or unless it has WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The divorce filing, likewise, is just a bare accusation at the moment. While they have some coverage, devoting two paragraphs to potentially-negative material about a BLP requires more than just one news cycle noting that accusations exist - especially one who attracts as much attention as Omar; this coverage is minor compared to what she normally gets. If these turn out to be significant or are confirmed by later coverage, there will be more going forwards, but right now I'm not seeing enough to support covering fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL defamatory claims about a BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree with you. Perhaps sometime editors forget that a BLP requires a higher level of sourcing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Is this material less worthy of inclusion than:

-Omar’s father’s comments on school bullying she suffered due to her Muslim identity;

-Comments made by an unidentified Omar supporter at a 2019 rally in New York City;

-Omar’s introduction of legislation that would sanction the nation of Brunei; and

-Omar having been featured in a Maroon 5 music video?

That material is on the page right now, and there is no apparent dispute over its weightiness.

For now, we can wait and see whether more coverage develops on the divorce issues and the complaint (there is already a good deal), but let's be sure to guard against using a heightened standard of due weight because of who the subject of the article is.

Also, Aquillion, please note that your assertion in an edit summary that "a complaint with no followup is WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPCRIME" is incorrect in this instance; per WP:BLPCRIME, that rule is inapplicable to public figures. SunCrow (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason the National Legal and Policy Center exists is to promote unfounded rumors ignored by the mainstream. It is not our role as editors to assist them unless per WEIGHT the story gets widespread attention. TFD (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

<-----this is a completely baseless accusation.

I'm really interested in why so much attention is put into defending/ protecting liberal candidates and shielding them from criticisms where as if they were conservative, the wiki would be full of just about every accusation and criticism ever made. There seems to be extremely heavy bias here.2601:187:4002:4160:6C25:B79F:F207:C568 (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like Whataboutism. If there is an article where you think a conservative person is being treated unfairly, the best place to raise that would be on that talk page. Zaathras (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. (Also I have moved the inappropriate addition at the end of TFD's comment to its own line, and fixed the indenting..) --JBL (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"American politician" vs. "Somali-American politician"

For a very long time this article began (essentially) "Ilhan Omar is a Somali-American politican ..." (or sometimes "Somali American"); for example, Nov 2018 (just before being elected to Congress), Jan 2019, March 2019, May 2019. More recently, some editor or editors have removed the "Somali" (or "Somali-") descriptor from the first sentence. Unlike the silliness about her "Arabic name" above, this seems to me misguided: her notability derives in significant part from her background (she is the first Somali-American elected to any legislative office in the US, etc.). I propose that the modifier be restored. The relevant guideline is MOS:ETHNICITY: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. -- it seems to me that the qualifiers are amply met in this case. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Her notability stems from the fact that she's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and before that the Minnesota House. How much does being Somali factor into her notability? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

She was notable before she was elected -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilhan_Omar. She received widespread national news coverage as the first Somali-American elected in the US. (This is covered in multiple places in the article, along with a detailed discussion of her ethnicity/background.) --JBL (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

She has indeed received a lot of coverage focusing on her Somali upbringing. I'm torn on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the above user. Furthermore it is unclear whether she even retained Somali citizenship after immigrating and becoming a U.S. Citizen, thereby making the label "Somali-American" questionable anyway, but nonetheless her notability is entirely as an American politician in the U.S.A. I'm not sure how her ethnicity/place of birth figures into her notability at all to warrant inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is beside the point (i.e., it doesn't control what the first sentence should say), but you are absolutely wrong about the first part: the descriptor "Somali-American" is about her ethnicity/birthplace, it has nothing to do with her nationality, and it is attested to by an infinite number of reliable sources. About the second part, if you read the lead of the article you will see it already contains a detailed discussion of her Somali background, because it correctly reflects the content of the article. The question I am raising is whether, in addition, it should begin by describing her as a Somali American. --JBL (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just realized there was an earlier discussion of this that I missed (probably, this is when the removal happened): Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_10#Heritage_and_Nationality. It does not look to me like there was consensus for the removal there. --JBL (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In the first sentence it should not mention "Somali" because I think that wouldn't be appropriate considering that it is followed by "politician" and she was not a politician in the Somali. Also I think this case is very similar to Obama and in the Obama article the first sentence doesn't say "African", etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Barack Obama is not African. Ilhan Omar is Somali. Nevertheless, Barack Obama's article mentions that he is African-American in the second sentence. --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then based on what Mr. JBL said, I think I further stand by why the term "Somali" should NOT be included in the lead. The lead per Wikipedia guidelines as stated in WP:Ethnicity already mentioned above should only describe nationality by default, not ethnicity or place of birth or prior nationalities unless the latter are somehow directly relevant to her notability. Simply being born in Somalia or being born a Somali citizen does not mean that said descriptor should be included in the lead. We don't have any information that she retains Somali citizenship, whereas we know for a fact she is a U.S. citizen as such is a prerequisite for her political office. Also, her Somali birth has little to no relevance to her notability as a U.S. politician. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't made my mind up 100%, but I think it's worth noting that while she has recieved considerable press for being the first Somali-American congresswoman, even more headlines mention her faith first. Your average headline would say "first Muslim woman elected to congress"(well, tied for first). I think we should leave the lead as-is. Also note, Rashida Tlaib has the same lead, American politician, with Palistinian-American further down. Let's leave the lead alone. TheSavageNorwegian 02:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Thesavagenorwegian: Rashida Talib was born in the United States, and the fact that she's Palestinian is much less widely noted than the fact that Omar is Somali. (Just compare the coverage in the two articles.) --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Apoorva Iyer: I am happy to be called by my username (Joel B. Lewis) or by my abbreviated username (JBL); but if you want to use a title/honorific, the correct choice is "Dr.", not "Mr." --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent and thread your posts correctly. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am not that familiar with the way to indent on wikipedia. do you have a source I can look to to learn/could you let me know how? Also, Rashida Tlaib being born in the USA does not change the situation one bit. Being born in a different country does not somehow make that country more relevant to inclusion in the lead, just as being born a certain ethnicity does not either. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the link: WP:THREAD. (I have fixed the indentation on the comment right above this one, I hope that's all right.) Substantively: being born in a place is a more significant connection to that place than not being born in that place. So it is not particularly surprising that Tlaib is not called "Palestinian-American" in the first sentence, and the fact that she is not does not shed much light on the case of someone like Omar with a much stronger connection (both in terms of biographical significance and notability/coverage in reliable sources). --JBL (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I disagree here. Being born in a place may offer an obvious biographical connection to that place, but as to whether that is notable and worthy of inclusion in the lead is an entirely different question and one akin to asking whether someone's ethnicity, religious background, or other information is also information worthy of inclusion in the lead. Rashida Tlaib is known for being Muslim, Palestinian-American, and a variety of other things but those are not included in her lead. Similarly, I don't see why we should include Ilhan Omar's birthplace in the lead. Just because she was born in Somalia does not automatically make that relevant to her notability and worthy of inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I think a great place to look for guidance on this issue is the part of WP:Ethnicity that states "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Ilhan Omar achieved her notability as a U.S. citizen and politician in the USA, not as a Somali one. News articles may highlight her Somali heritage as they may highlight Rashida Tlaib's Palestinian one but that does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion in the lead just as their mutual muslim backgrounds, which are also notable and mentioned frequently in the media, are also not included in their leads. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is a side note and not directly relevant to the topic at hand, but I'd like to note that being born in a certain place doesn't always even give you a significant connection to that place. Take, for instance, people who immigrate as infants or toddlers from another country. These people have no memory or connection to their place of birth over their US-born counterparts. This isn't Ilhan's case, but just thought I'd provide food for thought. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Many of your comments have the following feature: they live entirely at the level of generality and fail to deal with the particular details of this particular biography. Such comments do not add anything to the discussion. —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I addressed the fact that media sources like to highlight her Somali heritage/birthplace. I provided a comparison to other aspects of her background which are also highlighted in the media but yet are not included in the lead. I referenced Wikipedia guidelines on the issue as well. What is your reasoning for inclusion of her birthplace in the lead beyond that it is mentioned in media sources? Why should we include it in the lead over other qualifiers that are also equally addressed for her in the media such as her religious background? I feel like I need more specifics from your end to justify how her Somali heritage is directly relevant to her notability as a U.S. politician before I can be on the same page. If the only reasoning is that she is the first Somali-American elected to office, etc., then I'd point out that Rashida Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American elected to office and birthplace outside the USA as discussed previously is not somehow a greater reason for inclusion in the lead. Also she is one of the first muslim congresswoman so technically her religion is also important for the lead if we are looking at it from that angle. I think it is better that these factors are mentioned a few lines later as opposed to in the first line. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Usually hyphenation would mean that Omar was a politician both in Somalia and the U.S. By comparison, Einstein was a German American scientist, Peter Lorre was a German-American actor, but we wouldn't say that Reagan was an Irish American politician, because he never held office in Ireland. TFD (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure I agree with this analysis, but assuming consensus is reached to include, we can then discuss which form to include. (The earlier discussion was leaning towards “Somali-born American”, which I also like and skirts the hyphen issue.) —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the qualifier of "Somali-born American" doesn't really solve the issue either. We still have to ask why her birthplace is worthy of inclusion in the lead. Being the first of Somali birth or heritage in her position isn't any different than Rashida Tlaib or anyone else of other ethnicities being the first of their heritages to be elected to their offices. Just because she was born there it doesn't somehow make that more worthy of inclusion in the lead. And then by that logic do we have to include her religion in the lead too? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that "Somali-American politician" is the correct and accurate category for a naturalized citizen, as the second paragraph shows. Compare Arnold_Schwarzenegger is an Austrian-American actor, filmmaker, businessman, author, and former professional bodybuilder and politician. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I don't see in what way that would be obvious. Unless your place of birth is directly relevant to your notability (ex: you achieved your notability in that country prior to immigrating to a different one), and/or you remain a citizen of that country, why would you include it in the lead? Especially for Omar, who achieved her notability as a U.S. Citizen only and has no evidence of retaining Somali citizenship, I think the label Somali-American would in fact be inaccurate. I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger has dual citizenship. Not only that, but Wikipedia is pretty clear on this too in WP:Ethnicity. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop bludgeoning the conversation: you have repeated the same thing over and over again, and other people are entitled to discuss without this bad behavior from you. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, I wasn't even aware that "bludgeoning" was a thing. I think you can be a little kinder in your tone. I responded to this previous user's post as it repeated many of the same points brought up before that had already been discussed. I will be sparser in my commenting here from now per WP:Bludgeoning. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we keep it as it is with "an American politician..." in the first para in the lead and then introducing her Somali heritage in the second para as we do now. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger came second in the Mr. Universe contest when he still lived in Austria and before he became a U.S. citizen in 1983 was famous as a body builder featured in Pumping Iron and had starred in Conan the Barbarian. So he was an actor both before and after he became a U.S. citizen, while Omar was never a politician before becoming a U.S. citizen. TFD (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump tweet about "go back and help"

The article leads the reader to believe that the President said she should go back, but he never said "should". The article says - should "go back" to the "places from which they came". This paraphrases his tweet in such a way to lead the reader to believe he used a racist trope. Go back and help is quite different in meaning. President Trump said "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." The article eliminates "and help" which makes it out of context. He never said she should stay there, as the racist trope goes. In fact he says "Then come back". The link to the racist trope is unfair and biased. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.25.58 (talk)

They came from the US. O3000 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The article does not say that Trump used the word "should". Your statement that the article misquotes Trump as using the word "should" is false; in the article only "go back" is quoted from Trump, and the word "should" is an accurate paraphrase that is outside the direct quote. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note: After my comment pointing out that the previous comment (claiming that the article misquotes Trump) was wrong, an IP-editor made edits in that earlier critical comment, changing the wording so as to make it appear that my comment was wrong. This violates talk-page guidelines, see WP:TPO (Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning). NightHeron (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

From WP:REDACT: if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. NightHeron (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles rely on the interpretation in reliable secondary sources. Why btw doesn't Trump go back to Europe and fix their broken health care systems and open borders? TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the substantive, real-world one; on that issue, the IP's post is utter and complete BS, as well as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. The second issue is about whether that wikilink is appropriate as currently used, and regrettably the IP is correct that this is questionable; see MOS:LINKQUOTE. It would be much better to include that link separately, elsewhere in the same sentence or in a separate sentence. (Reliable sourcing of the racist content of Trump's post will not be hard to come by.) --JBL (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of anti-semitism controversy from lead

We had a closed discussion-consensus a few months ago that the controversy regarding the anti-semitism accusations belonged in the lead. Who removed the content and why? Where was the consensus for doing so? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Things change over time, your answer was easily found n the talk page archives, Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_12#Early_2019_statements_in_the_lead. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that four three editors, who participated in the prior discussion involving over 30 editors, who voted against keeping the material, even though the discussion resulted in consensus for keeping the material, returned and decided to unilaterally override the prior decision at a time when they knew that the discussion was unlikely to receive broader input. This shouldn't have been done without another RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be calling names like "right-wingers" in your edit summaries. You should know better. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the discussion I'm referencing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A portion of the comment from the closing administrator: I would suggest though to wait at least a year or until there is another significant event they are involved with. The editors (who voted no in the linked archive) in the extremely limited "discussion" you linked to blatantly disregarded this recommendation, waiting only 7 months and with no significant intervening events, to reinstate the version they preferred. This type of sneaky gaming is no justification to make these dramatic changes to a high-activity article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Note the part of the RfC closer's statement: "or until there is another significant event they are involved with." Well, an awful lot has happened since last April, for example, the frequent attacks on her by Trump in his tweets. If the fact that the US President has a fixation on attacking her doesn't belong in the lede, then neither do claims that comments she made a year ago were anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not an either or proposition. It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments, especially not within 7 months. Her political disputes certainly are not such an event, and it seems the lead already notes the "political harassment," which is a charged and questionable term. There is a concerted effort on this page to diminish controversies and play up political disputes that seem to cast the subject in a sympathetic light. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

For a US president to ask the government of another country to deny a visa to a congressperson and for him to launch personal attacks against her, calling on her to return to her country of birth -- this is (as far as I know, but I'm not a historian) unprecedented in US history. It is far more notable than a controversy about interpretation of the words she used to voice opposition to Israeli policy. If the former is not notable enough for the lede, then neither is the latter, as should be clear to editors irrespective of their personal opinions about Rep. Omar. NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the comments you're referring to belong is a separate discussion. Weight is accorded based on treatment in reliable sources, not your opinion or personal analysis. One has nothing to do with the other. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the US President's vendetta against Ilhan Omar wasn't covered much in reliable sources?? NightHeron (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm telling you that it's irrelevant. This back-and-forth is getting very WP:POINTY, as well as off-topic, and I don't have any interest in continuing it. If you have other concerns about the lead, those are best expressed in a separate section. What we're addressing here is a consensus formed months ago and the attempt by a small group of editors to override it without broader input. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments. That is not the conclusion that the RFC reached. The discussion was close and hinged on a lot of people concerned with recentism, with a specific caveat that allowed for the possibility that an event could overshadow it; therefore, the conclusion was that it would stand only until there was another major event, which (at least based on the most recent discussion) was the case. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop saying "recent discussion." There was no discussion. You and two other editors who had a problem with the material returned in August to remove it. Two editors objected, and you ignored them. You have been about as non-transparent about your intentions as possible. Second, to date, no other event has been treated as significantly in reliable sources as the anti-semitism controversy. It's telling that you find the watered-down version acceptable, which makes no reference to the criticism against her, only a whitewashed statement about her views on Israel. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of this from the lede was out of process and ridiculous. A public trouting might be warranted here, even, it's not really excusable here given the time and effort that was spent by dozens of people here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Its "lead" not "lede". They are two different things. --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing the article lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for this horrendous and offensive oversight, Malerooster. What I said was a horrific violation of the English language and I am not sure I can ever be forgiven, let alone if I can ever forgive myself for this. Toa Nidhiki05 01:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

An RfC is not a stone monument, forever unyielding to change. Several editors held a discussion in the link I provided, a discussion that resulted in the removal of the content in question. Said discussion took place in August, thus the trimmed lede (for the record, I use lede/lead interchangeably, I have no idea what the exchange above is on about) has remained live for the last 4 months, abot as long as it was from RfC-to-that-discussion. I would therefore posit that it is incumbent upon Mr. 19920 and his new friend to establish consensus for the restoration, and that it should be restored to it's August version while they go about that.

Pinging the participants in that last discussion; @Aquillion:, @Starship.paint:, @Nableezy:, @Sir Joseph:, @SharabSalam:, @Nblund:. Zaathras (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Stability is a goal for a high-activity article on a controversial subject. When you have an RfC that received the input of dozens of editors, it carries more weight than a trio of editors superficially addressing the same issue a short time later. Further, there was no "result" of the discussion; the same editors who initially objected the material repeatedly returned to the page to remove it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We can always go for another RFC, I suppose. But my feeling is that (keeping in mind that this is negative material about a BLP and therefore consensus is always required to keep it in, and that recent discussions have obviously called that consensus into doubt) I really don't think it would be possible to reach a consensus to keep it there today. She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio. That is why the more recent discussion five months ago ended with it being removed, and I assume it is why the people who objected (though they found themselves in the minority) declined to waste time by pushing for an RFC that they surely realized would no longer be able to reach a consensus to keep it there. Certainly stability is a goal, but the removal was stable for months on end (indicating that, yes, most people tacitly accepted it), and that likewise indicates that the initial addition was ill-considered WP:RECENTISM for something that, relative to the subject's overall bio, ultimately turned out to be little more than a brief wave of talking points. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillon: What a dishonest post. I also wouldn't use the words "talking points," if I were you. You have repeatedly returned to try and purge this material from the article. The fact is we have a standing consensus for the material and that is not overturned by the fact that you and two other editors returned a few months later and rehashed the same points that were rejected in February. The fact that the material was removed is just as easily explained by the fact that many of the editors advocating for its removal, like myself, haven't been closely following this page, yet you still overlooked the concerns expressed by editors in August. The anti-semitism accusations and subsequent criticism are continually referenced, have received the most substantial coverage of anything she's done at this point in her career, and are clearly still a prominent part of her public profile. Only someone who's utterly biased could deny that, and it's a shame editors refused to accept an RfC they disagree with and return every few months to sneakily slip the material out when no one's looking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

While I know you didn't know this at the time, the reality is that that, in the original RFC, sockpuppets were used to push through WP:BLP-sensitive accusations in the lead without establishing a genuine consensus (see my comment below.) This is the reason it keeps coming up (and why discussions both before and since show an overwhelming and clear consensus against inclusion) - it never actually reflected a consensus, just one editor's determination to force through their preferred version against consensus via WP:SOCKing. You are incorrect to imply that this is now what she is most famous for; the coverage of the harassment and threats against her vastly outweighs it. But, in any case, while I understand you didn't realize this at the time, you are incorrect to say that there has ever been a consensus for this material; it was tainted by sockpuppetry, which invalidates its closure. With sockpuppets excluded it was nearly two to one against inclusion; obviously RFCs are not simply a numerical vote, but we cannot include material like this based on another RFC. Since the arguments have long since started going in circles, and since we do need to establish a valid consensus, I suggest directing your attention to the new RFC below. --Aquillion (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:CRYBLP removal by Aquillion. Jerusalem Post described the Democratic rebuke of Ilhan Omar's antisemitic comments as "exceptional"[2]. It's not that some other things happening after that make it completely irrelevant and warrant its erasure from the article completely . Aquillion should drop this "my way or no way" attitude here or else it's starting to look like tendendious POV-pushing. --Pudeo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Referencing CRYBLP in a discussion may be an easy method of dismissing another editor’s concerns. We still take extra care in using highly negative material in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether it stays or goes, it is badly written by presenting the accusation before the context. For neutral tone it should state something along the lines of:

"A frequent critic of Israeli politics, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and criticised the pro-Israel lobbies influence in US politics. Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes."

But that last sentence is the contentious part as everyones political opinions are subject to criticism. It may be best to present it with a closer context to the statement "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, and other harassment by political opponents.[8][9]" as they are indelibly linked. Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion said, "She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio." That makes a lot of sense to me and I agree. I suggest that we keep some of the copy re her criticisms of Israel and remove the sentence, " Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes." She did apologize for those statements and the body of the article, not the lead, is the place for that information. I also agree with those who believe we need to include a sentence in the lead re Trump's statements. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi GandydancerI agree. I have changed the sentence a bit, removed a duplication (the last part of the sentence was actually already stated in the sentence above). I also added the fact that she is a "victim" of direct critique by Trump. I think this should be included as Trump is one of the main sources for her being targeted. as NightHeron also mentioned. I feel this is crucial information. Garnhami (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's just shocking to me how blatant editors are to use terms to cast the subject in a sympathetic light and make disingenuous arguments to remove critical content. This article is a prime example of WP:SOAPBOXING at its worst. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please try to be respectful and avoid accusations against other editors. I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint it's hard to observe WP:AGF. But please try. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the obvious effect of the language used. "Victim" is a decidedly non-neutral term. Watering down negative material is equally problematic. I hope you're being intentionally ironic, because your comment I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint... is in fact an accusation and has nothing to do with the article. Don't presume to know what my views are, and try to be a bit more objective in analyzing content and arguments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920 I saw they removed the adjustment I did. I do agree that a sentence explaining she does receive some critique (as the one I wrote) could be in its place as I think it is ok to note that she received some critique for her viewpoints. For me "For some of her comments she has been criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes of Jewish money and power fueling support for Israel." is a rather neutral sentence. Gandydancer removed it, but maybe it can be put back later (altered maybe?) if there is a consensus. However, I do NOT agree with you regarding what you insinuate about the use of the word victim. She clearly is a victim. You can not deny that Trump has been attacking her and that he is one of the roots of the backlashes she gets! A USA president that talks like how he does? Not normal. NightHeron is right when it comes to that.Garnhami (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that no one is arguing that last year's controversy about Omar's comments about Israel and about the pro-Israel lobby in the US should not be covered in detail in the article, as it is. The issue being discussed here is whether or not that controversy belongs in the lede. So editors who believe that it does not belong in the lede should not be accused of trying to remove criticism from the article. NightHeron (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you're following the discussion, but restating the obvious is a waste of space. I find it interesting that editors on this page arguing that the substantial criticism of her views is not relevant for the lead while her views on Israel are. I'm sure some editors would like to see any mention of the controversy purged from the article entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I"m also astonished at what a joke the lead has become. "Personal critique from Trump?" Not only is this poorly written, it just further exacerbates the problem I've been discussing all along, where controversies are omitted contrary to MOS:LEAD and information is played up to portray the subject of the article sympathetically and as a victim. This page has and continues to be negatively impacted by editors who are either consciously or unconsciously revising the page in a way that is in complete non-conformance with WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a suggestion in there somewhere? O3000 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty easy to find if you'd actually read my comments: 1) respect the consensus met in the prior discussion and include the criticism of her comments re: her views on Israel in the lead, not just a whitewashed summary of her views without mention of it, and 2) stop exaggerating political disputes and the "victimhood" notion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920She faced (and still does) major backlashes/pure racism/hate due to the actions of Trump, I do not consider this as exaggerating at all nor as pure political disputes. Calling someone to go back to "their country" is hardly political. I do agree with your statement that there can be something added about others critiquing her, as I already mentioned in my previous statement.Garnhami (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If your only argument is "it was agreed upon at one time, so it must remain that way", that is extremely piss-poor IMO, and should be weighted very little in the final analysis of this discussion, read WP:CCC when you have a moment. Also, perhaps you could find current (.i.e. withing the last 2 weeks or so) sources that shows Rep. Omar is still criticized regularly for her actions? If not, then this ship may have passed, and is only worth a reduced mention, as the article had before you reverted it.

To the other editors who have been more measured and reasonable in their responses thus far, should another request for comment be held? Zaathras (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zaathras: your arguments are utterly devoid of any reference to sources or policy. You and others are only offering your personal opinion about the controversy, which is totally irrelevant and inappropriate. You also made some bizarre reference to "right wingers" in your edit summary removing the content again. Certain discussions carry more weight than others. We had a consensus developed over several weeks with the input of 30+ editors in which it was decided that the material was relevant and shouldn't be removed for an extended period of time, for at least a year. You don't get to dismiss an RfC or re-litigate because it doesn't align with your opinion. It seems that there isn't any objection to mentioning her views on Israel generally within the lead, without mention of the fact that those views have garnered intense criticism + accusations of anti-semitism. This was national news and the most coverage we've seen to date. Editors like Aquillion, who participated in the original discussion and whose arguments did not prevail there, are just rehashing the same points yet again, in the process revealing their own bias when referring to the material as "talking points." Not unlike you, with your "right-wingers" comment. We don't assess whether or not information is favorable or unfavorable to an article subject. We examine its coverage and relevance in proportion to the overall public profile of the person. Someone also said that the "death threats" are "inextricably linked" with her comments on Israel, something conspiratorial and completely unsupported by the sources. @Garnhami:, I appreciate that you understand that the comments on Israel belong in the lead, but you need to frame your arguments in context with sources. Honestly I think that @Toa Nidhiki05: had it right when he called out the abuse of process going on here, and I think we may be better off with dispute resolution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920: Your emotional response to editors who disagree with you is not a positive contribution to improving the article. In this thread you called a comment by User:Aquillion a "dishonest post." You accused editors of being "sneaky" and "disingenuous." You just made a false accusation against User:Zaathras: your arguments are utterly devoid of any reference to sources or policy. Just a few lines higher, User:Zaathras referred to WP:CCC, a policy which is definitely relevant to this discussion. You claim that other editors are ignoring the closing judgment on the earlier RfC, but it's you who are ignoring the part of that closing judgment that says or until there is another significant event they are [Omar is] involved with. Once before I appealed to you to observe WP:AGF. Please tone down your anger, and try to work constructively with other editors. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron It's interesting that you've appointed yourself as policeman of this discussion while exhibiting the same behavior that you're going on about ("I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint..."). You should spend more time addressing my points, and less on lecturing. What exactly do you mean by "significant event?" Significance, weight, is determined by sources. Consensus can change, but not all discussions are equal. The RfC referenced here clearly should prevail over a smaller discussion of three editors who made changes to the article when there was less attention paid to it. Clearly, you lose on the time element -- an the amount of time deemed appropriate by the closing admin has not passed. So you and others are zeroing in on this "significant event" language. But what superseding event has eclipsed the anti-semitism controversy or made it irrelevant? I do not see any evidence to support this, nor have you or anyone else put such evidence forward. The mere fact that she has been in the news since does not make the anti-semitism controversy earlier this year moot. In fact, there are reliable sources that continue to report on the matter as little as recently as this week. See here. So why, all of sudden, are we hearing the same arguments that were made when the controversy first broke, from the same editors? If the positions were reversed, and the same closed RfC had come out against inclusion, with an admin specifying a period of time that should pass until it is reconsidered, would you all be arguing that the RfC was irrelevant? I have my doubts. Further, this whole notion of conflating the anti-semitism controversy with the Trump comments is a red herring. The two are unrelated except for the fact that Trump apparently referenced it in some of his comments, but the vast majority of reliable source coverage have treated them as distinct. Editors should be doing the same here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920: No, I'm no "policeman." The policemen/policewomen on Wikipedia are the admins, not us rank-and-file editors. I was merely appealing to you to relate to other editors respectfully, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Any editor, "policeman" or not, can appeal to another editor to do that. As far as my words highly partisan are concerned, it's your tone and insults directed against other editors that lead us to see you as highly partisan.

I asked you before, Are you suggesting that the US President's vendetta against Ilhan Omar wasn't covered much in reliable sources?? You didn't answer that. Trump's tweet campaign against Omar is a significant event they are [Omar is] involved with in the words of the closing admin for the earlier RfC. Trump's tweets on this subject -- and the controversy over them --- have been extensively reported on by mainstream media. You claim that's irrelevant, but it's not. It's directly relevant to the words of the RfC's closing admin. NightHeron (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron I'll say it again: focus on your own behavior. Calling other editors "highly partisan" is not very nice. And I have no idea what you believe the Trump comments have to do with the anti-semitism controversy re: Omar's comments and tweets. They neither out-rank in significance nor eclipse the controversy. One involves another politicians comments about her. I would hardly say that Trump's criticism of her has defined her career in a significant way. The anti-semitism controversy happened only a few months ago and was the subject of national coverage for several weeks, from the NYT to CNN, and continues to be referenced by sources. I'm fine with addressing the Trump thing in the lead, but I don't understand why this has to be connected with removing the anti-semitism controversy. MOS:LEAD requires that controversial and significant elements of the subject's bio in the lead. We have an RfC affirming that the events were significant and controversial and worthy of a mention. Whether or not another politician's criticism of her, Trump or any other Republican, belongs in the lead is wholly unrelated. These arguments trying to connect the two are tenuous, disruptive, and should stop. We need to respect the results of the closed RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am concerned that there is a combination of talk page and edit summary tone and a lack of assumption of good faith that has created what appears to be an ongoing issue here. It's hard for me to understand what are the desired outcomes, because there's so much focus on interpersonal issues.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to identify someone as anti-semitic (or any other negative connotation). And, this shouldn't be done unless there's a wealth of information over time to support such a stance. There is plenty of information in the article about Omar's stance against Israeli politics (although that doesn't make someone anti-semitic). Why is it important to identify her as anti-semitic? Are there a lot of reliable sources that identify her as anti-semitic?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No one has suggested that she be "identified as anti-semitic." She has made comments that were perceived as anti-semitic regarding American support for Israel, which received significant attention and some backlash. The problem here is that we have a consensus for noting the controversy in the lead, which a small group of editors have decided to disregard. I doubt you'd have much trouble finding the relevant sources on Omar with a cursory Google search. Many of them are dated in February or March, but you'll find it's been continually referred back to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The content from this reverted sentence sure seems to suggest that she's anti-semitic. There is a political climate right now that seems to be rife with name-calling. For instance, when I searched on "Ihal Omar and anti-semitic", the results came up with a number of people identified as potentially anti-semitic, such as Bernie Sanders. I still don't think this language should be in the article until more time has gone by, but if you have an RfC and a majority of people that support its inclusion, I can see why there would be an argument to keep the language.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

She indeed made comments that were perceived as anti-semitic. It was very controversial. That's what the edit you linked says. That's what the source says. The distinction you're missing is that, at no point, did this article "identify her as anti-semitic." We already have a closed RfC affirming that the material should be included, and consensus is not a majority vote. You can brush up on the archived, closed discussion here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

For me, it's really a matter of encyclopedic tone. For instance, take a look at the intro for Stephen Miller (political advisor) (light tone in comparison to his influence) and David Duke (clearly calls him anti-semitic, etc. after decades of proof that he is anti-semitic, etc. Thanks for providing the links and distinction that it's not just majority vote that determines the outcome (although that's what's generally considered as a major factor).–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, though, I support the earlier conclusions. I was just stating my personal opinion... and feel it would be better to wait to see how things work themselves out in the House, re: request for apology, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not really at issue right now. To date, the comments are the most controversial aspect of her public profile. I'd recommend you do some further reading on the sources cited in the past discussion, and in the article before the content was removed. Here is a good place to start. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessary. The fact that The New York Times wrote the article and her statements have raised concern with leadership lets me know that this is a concern and real controversy. There is already information in the article about the ongoing fact that she questions Israel. I am just more conservative about adding inflammatory content, apparently like the edits that contributed to the Stephen Miller (political advisor) article. For instance, the intro could contain content that his actions have resulted in calls for him being fired for his actions that have spanned several years to a far more dramatic negative impact on the lives of people in America.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is becoming a circular discussion. I don't care what happened at that article or for labels like "inflammatory." Her statements were controversial. They were heavily criticized. This is all well documented, and remains a significant part of her career. She is well known for her views on Israel, and the remarks that led to accusations of anti-semitism were a part of that. Some editors want to have their cake and eat it too here (tout her views on Israel but omit the controversial nature of her statements), but WP:PUBLICFIGURE and MOS:LEAD don't give grounds for whitewashing the lead of a controversial subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Pleasant. I understand your points... and they would come across so much better without the tone issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'm glad we're understanding each other better now, and I appreciate the feedback. @NorthBySouthBaranof: I'm largely in agreement with your edits, but I have to urge a few minor tweaks: First, she wasn't commenting on "Israeli" influence, it was about the influence of Jewish-American pro-Israel lobbying groups. She was specifically referring to AIPAC with the "all about the Benajamin's" remark. Also, I don't think it's fully accurate to say that it was just "critics" who described her remarks as anti-semitic. That seems to just suggest political opponents characterized the remarks as such. In fact, that interpretation was much more broad, from the NYT to other reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The cited NYT source: And her insinuations that American policy toward the Jewish state is driven by money — “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she wrote on Twitter — have drawn charges of anti-Semitism, prompting her to apologize. The source doesn't support stating, as fact in Wikipedia voice, that the comments were anti-Semitic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should state the comments "were" anti-semitic. I'm saying that the perception that they were anti-semitic went beyond just her "critics." It's sort of misleading to say that just someone's critics said something, when the condemnation of the remarks was far more widespread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone making such a statement is, by definition, critical of Omar - that doesn't mean they're wrong, it simply means they were critical of those particular statements by Omar. "Have been perceived" is anodyne anonymity - said that? We have to at least attempt to create attribution of opinions. Several of the groups she has referred to are explicitly Israeli lobby groups, not merely "Jewish-American," so the correct approach would be to mention both. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What "Israeli" lobby groups has she referred to? The comments that got her in trouble were in reference to AMERICAN lobbying groups. And I have no idea what you're talking about with "anodyne anonymity." I'm glad you're busting out the thesaurus, but her comments were widely interpreted as anti-semitic, not just among "critics" of her. Your black-and-white reasoning (if they said her remarks were anti-semitic, for example, the NYT, they are a "critic") misses the point and is misleading in that it glosses over this crucial point. Stop edit-warring. Someone who condemned the remarks is not by definition a "critic" of Omar. When something only comes from "critics," it seems less legitimate. I don't know if that's what your angling for, but that's the effect, and it's false and disproven by the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Critic does not mean the same thing as enemy or opponent. Definition #1 of critic on dictionary.com: a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes; Google's 1st definition: a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something. NightHeron (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This conversation is begging for an "everyone's a critic" joke. On a more serious note, it's ridiculous to characterize the diverse array of parties who condemned the remarks as enti-semitic as "critics." This is not the language used by the sources that have reported on her comments, and it's not the language we should use here. It also seems to create a bit of a false balance problem, as if there were an equal number of defenders of the remarks. I don't believe there were any reliable sources or commentators defending the remarks. The wording should not suggest as much. And second, "stood by her remarks?" Let's get rid of the purple prose and heroic language. She refused to apologize. Plain and simple. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's another bit from the NYT illustrating my point: And while her choice of words has caused some of her own Muslim constituents to describe her as anti-Semitic. Are they "critics" too? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she does have critics within the Muslim community (as described in the NYT article) who believe she should have kept a low profile during her first term in Congress and should not have spoken about Israel. Other people (also mentioned in the NYT article) are glad she spoke out on Israel and did not back down from her general comments on the subject. But she did apologize for the wording that was criticized for evoking anti-semitic tropes. Note that the words you quote from the NYT article are immediately followed by: many American Muslims across the country are worried that the ongoing criticism of Ms. Omar is being motivated by racism and Islamophobia.

It's not "plain and simple," and she did not "refuse to apologize." Some people regard any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, and think that Omar should be attacked and ridiculed for everything she said on the subject. Other people agree with her general viewpoint on Israel, but criticize her for the times when she chose wording that evoked anti-semitic tropes. She apologized for that wording, but not for expressing her viewpoint about Israeli policies. NightHeron (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You're going to need to support your assertions with sources, not vague generalizations. If this supposed defense of her comments was significant viewpoint expressed in reliable sources, that's one thing. By all indications, it is not. This is just you spouting off your own views, which don't matter one iota. The near-universal view published in reliable sources was that her remarks were anti-semitic. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that the remarks were pereceived as such (not "were"). It is not appropriate to attribute that view to "her critics." And the other half of the quote you included above is irrelevant to this aspect of the lead, so I don't get your point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As you are in a distinct minority on this matter, any changes to the wording puts the burden on your to gain consensus. Zaathras (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no consensus here on any wording and the current wording: Critics have charged that some of her comments about the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups have drawn upon anti-Semitic tropes. Omar has apologized for some of the remarks and stood behind others. is atrocious. It's repetitive, misleading (creates a false balance regarding critics"), and unnecessarily long. If you can't appreciate the basics of writing and sentence structure, you're in no position to determine what sucks. Stop edit-warring and making trouble. You were wrong on this from the beginning and continue to be. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This wording is an attempted compromise; your proposed version does not have consensus either, and you appear not to be interested in materially addressing the concerns that multiple editors have expressed with it. If you like, we could simply go back to status quo ante and remove the material altogether until there is clearly-expressed consensus (perhaps via an RFC) for a version which might belong in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

As has been said earlier, an RfC is appropriate when there is a more even division of opinions but not for a situation such as we have here. Plus, IMO this editor needs to quit flying off the handle and calling any editors that do not agree with their opinions dopes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, the "status quo" would be the consensus that was reached earlier this year, which was not supposed to be disturbed for a length of time specified by the closing admin. I recognize that your wording is an attempted compromise, and I noted earlier that I largely appreciated the changes, but, IMO, a compromise doesn't mean our work is done. The sentence is still slightly repetitive: it mentions "influence" twice. This is the most apparent issue with the sentence, it's just too long. It's not clear what a "pro-Israel lobbying group" is, and I believe it should mention the fact that she was referring to Jewish-American lobbying groups, but that's probably the most minor issue. The biggest problem, as I have mentioned, is that by writing "critics charged," it seems to suggest a false balance. At the risk of repeating myself, condemnation of her remarks was nearly universal in reliable sources. It's not as if there were, at least among WP:DUE opinions, defenders and critics. Almost all major national outlets reported on the story with her remarks being perceived as anti-semitic. If you have a response to these specific critiques I'm all ears. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

the fact she was referring to Jewish-American lobbying groups.

This isn't true per the sources. She mentioned pro-Israel lobby groups in the US. We only mention what reliable sources say. Please don't waste our time with your imaginary "fact".--SharabSalam (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you say something that is anti-Semitic, you are probably anti-Semitic. If you use an anti-Semitic trope, that’s in extremely bad taste (assuming you’re not a Jewish comic); but it does not necessarily mean you are anti-Semitic. Trump has voiced anti-Semitic tropes on multiple occasions. [3][4][5] Does that make him anti-Semitic? She apologized for the use of such. Has he? My point is that we have to avoid making more of this than there is. Here’s a recent story about such problems about a recent accusation by Lahav Harkov against Omar: Dylan Williams, the senior vice president of pro-Israel group J Street, responded to Harkov saying her (Harkov’s) comment is "exactly the kind of bad-faith, weaponized accusation that has clouded and eroded understanding of the very real threat posed by anti-Semitism." [6] This subject belongs in the text. As its mainstream legs have buckled, I don't see it in the lead. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Also per WP:RACIST we should be careful when calling somone's comments, anti-Semitic or such thing. I don't see how any of Ilhan Omar's comments were anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. It all seems like a smearing campaign supported by the Israel lobby and the right-wing media.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes people make honest mistakes when talking to or about racial or ethnic groups other than their own. Some people call that microaggressions; others call it faux pas. That's what Omar did last February, and then she apologized. By itself this is not notable. What makes it notable for Wikipedia is that it's been blown all out of proportion so as to create political effects, which are amply documented in the NY Times and elsewhere. If we're going to keep the material about the anti-semitism issue or non-issue in the lead, perhaps the coverage in the lead should include a mention of the way the matter has been "weaponized" (to use Dylan Williams' words) for political purposes. NightHeron (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a good opportunity to remind you all of [{WP:NOTFORUM]]. First of all, @NightHeron:'s "explanation" of the comments as Sometimes people make honest mistakes when talking and it's been blown all out of proportion so as to create political effects has nothing to do with what's been reported in any source. This is all pure opinion, by an editor, which should not and cannot taint this article. @SharabSalam:'s comment It all seems like a smearing campaign supported by the Israel lobby and the right-wing media is the kind of comment that should be grounds for a warning or topic ban, as this is, again, an editor making their personal opinions about a matter known without any reference to sources. As for O3000's comment If you say something that is anti-Semitic, you are probably anti-Semitic. If you use an anti-Semitic trope, that’s in extremely bad taste (assuming you’re not a Jewish comic); but it does not necessarily mean you are anti-Semitic., is equally irrelevant to the topic at hand. The article never stated that she was anti-semitic. We have several reliable sources saying that her remarks were perceived as anti-semitic, and that was the language proposed. These are the same weak arguments that were made earlier this year and roundly rejected by impartial observers. It's unfortunate this all comes to the fore again when discussing revisions to the language, and I'm not seeing any actual response to my recommendations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

An actual response: If RS are not calling her anti-Semitic, and mention in the mainstream media has faded; I don't see how this warrants inclusion in the lead. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, WP:RACIST says that we should verify where the label terms actually fit in order to make it in Wikivoice. The whole thing seems like a smearing campaign supported by the Israel lobby and the right-wing media. There is no anti-Semitic trope in her comments that I am aware of, whatsoever.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: What are you talking about? Nothing has "faded." The anti-semitism controversy from less than 12 months ago still produced the majority, or at least a plurality, of coverage that she received over her entire public career. Also, the comments are still regularly referenced. Here is a Newsweek story from last month and here is a story from the Guardian last week, both referencing her comments this year (and the Newsweek references a controversy that I'm not even sure is in the article yet). This is based only on a cursory search, and I'm sure I could find more. I see no evidence to support your assertions. @SharabSalam:, this is not a forum for you to discuss your personal views. You are expressing opinions that suggest an inability to edit neutrally. Your theories about "right-wing Israeli smears" have no place in this or any other talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize for that. I have got just one question. What is the problematic comment that is made by Ilhan Omar and is it anti-semitic trope?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:SHOWME is just as disruptive. You can find the answer in any one of the sources that I've referenced and linked to on this page. But I appreciate you striking the comments re: the above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I'd say the two cites you gave pretty much proved my point. It belongs in the body -- not the lead. O3000 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You can continue to restate your opinion, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't carry any water. The sources I provided directly disprove your entire point about the supposed "irrelevance" or "fading" of her comments from the public eye. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920: The source that you asked us to look at (The Guardian from a week ago) states that Omar has for the last year been the target of vicious rightwing attacks, not least by President Trump. Republicans and supporters of Israeli policies have an obvious political interest in making mountains out of molehills in their search for anything, no matter how farfetched, to use against her. The most recent attempt to call something she said anti-semitic was a tweet that said that it's not surprising that one billionaire (Cooperman) endorsed another billionaire (Bloomberg). In the Democratic primary campaign she's supporting Sanders and opposing Bloomberg. That has nothing to do with anti-semitism (they're both Jewish).

The context for the accusations of antisemitism is important. If those accusations stay in the lead, the lead should also point out that the continued accusations are part of an orchestrated campaign of attacks against Omar.

Rather than accusing User:SharabSalam of being disruptive and threatening them with tbanning, you should consider the possibility that your continued intemperate and unjustified attacks on other editors will boomerang against you. NightHeron (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Just glancing through, it looks like WP:1AM might be relevant to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron:, I'm not an admin, so I'm not threatening a tban. However, the kind of speculating and theorizing that you and SharabSalam are engaging in is exactly the type of behavior that is unproductive and forbidden from article talk pages. Again, familiarize yourself with WP:NOTFORUM. The portion relevant to this discussion is Omar has had to confront accusations of antisemitism, after a tweet uncovered from 2012referred to Israel, in its actions in Gaza, as having “hypnotized the world”. She has since apologised for inadequately “disavowing the antisemitic trope I unknowingly used”. What is not relevant to this discussion are your political analysis or opinions. JBL, I'd suggest you a) take a closer look and b) review the consensus on this earlier this year. Nothing's changed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In the lengthy discussions of the last 48 hours I count 6 editors who disagree with you and no editor who agrees with you. You accuse me of just giving my own opinions. But I used the very same source you asked us to look at. It (and other sources) support what I say, namely, that the continuation of accusations of antisemitism against Omar are part of an orchestrated partisan campaign against her. Section 6 in the article also supports that. It is not speculating and theorizing.

You don't have to be an admin to take someone to AE or ANI, so your hostile words about SharabSalam's comment (the kind of comment that should be grounds for a warning or topic ban) were really a threat.

On Wikipedia talk pages it's better to listen to what other editors are saying rather than just groundlessly attacking them. NightHeron (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Consensus isn't a vote count, as you might observe from the prior discussion on this. On Wikipedia, we use sources, not editor's opinions to support content. From WP:FORUM: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. ou have provided no support for your assertions about conspiracies, comparisons to other politicians, or theorizing about the accusations being "blown up for politics." I'm not going to go round and round here, because there are still improvements that should be made to the lead's language for better readability. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed something extremely important: The previous RFC people mention above, here, was tainted by sockpuppetry. It was very close, and two people supporting inclusion - including its creator and loudest voice - were sockpuppets: User:ModerateMikayla555 / User:Darryl.jensen. The RFC was already closed despite a significant numerical majority for exclusion - those sockpuppets were, alone, ~15-20% of the voices for inclusion, depending on how you count it. While an RFC is not a vote, they're meant to determine general consensus among editors, which is why WP:SOCK forbids that sort of effort to create an appearance of consensus when there is none. Given the context, and given how the RFC was already so far at the edge where a numerical minority can be called a consensus, I feel the sockpuppetry indisputably renders its outcome moot - with sockpuppets excluded, the RFC was nearly two-to-one against inclusion. This problem means there's currently no consensus for inclusion (necessary, obviously, for WP:BLP-sensitive material.) I've started another RFC below to obtain an untainted consensus, but until that is closed, do not restore the contested material to the article. I'm willing to assume good faith on this (clearly nobody noticed that the RFC was tainted at the time, nor after the sockpuppets involved were blocked), but the reality is that regardless, WP:BLP-sensitive material was pushed through without a consensus via sockpuppetry. I recognize that it's not the fault of the other people pushing for inclusion that the RFC's creator decided to resort to sockpuppetry to push through their preferred version, but they in turn need to recognize that that happened and that the RFC is therefore invalidated - an RFC was nearly two-to-one against inclusion with the sockpuppets excluded, and where the loudest voice for inclusion was engaging in sockpuppetry to create the artificial appearance of consensus, cannot reasonably be called a consensus to include. Now that we've noticed that problem, we need to slow down and start over. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Plain wrong. The consensus was never a vote count. The votes against inclusion actually exceeded the votes for. It was the strength of the arguments that the closing moderator based his/her closure of the discussion on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you think you can demonstrate a valid consensus, there's another RFC open below. While it's been open less than a day and of course more time is needed, a quick glance at how it's going at the moment heavily suggests that there was something, at least, extremely wrong with the previous RFC. More generally, while an RFC is not a vote, and sometimes it's necessary to interpret comments, they are also intended to measure consensus, ie. what the community as a whole thinks - someone using sockpuppetry to present the appearance of a stronger consensus for their opinion does invalidate the results, that's why this is banned under WP:SOCK. Anyway, like I said - one month to run an RFC won't break anything. If you're convinced that there is still a strong consensus for this inclusion and that the sockpuppetry didn't affect the outcome, the new RFC will reaffirm that and a new closer will recognize it. But I think it's hard to argue that a second RFC over seven months later is too soon, given both the sockpuppetry, given how many people who commented on the last one ended up banned for various reasons (some related to stuff that puts their contribution to consensus into question, like a WP:NOTHERE ban) and given how much Omar has been in the news. Consensus can change; the reason to avoid frequent RFCs is because it wastes time to re-iterate the same consensus over and over again, not because it becomes immutable. The fact that at a glance the latest RFC at least supports the interpretation that it is currently leaning overwhelmingly towards exclusion suggests that either the first RFC was improper or that consensus may have changed, either of which justifies having a new one regardless of the previous closer's preference that we wait a few more months. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't indicate anything is wrong. You haven't notified anyone from that discussion of this thread. Toa Nidhiki05 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The proper way to challenge a closed discussion is through the discussion closure forum. The fact that the person who merely opened the RfC violated sock puppetry rules does not invalidate the discussion. Over 30 editors contributed and an impartial admin decided that the strongest arguments were FOR inclusion. You as, as an editor with an expressed interest in the outcome and who is clearly a non-neutral party in that respect, do not get to unilaterally decide what makes a discussion invalid. This is not a matter that needs to be litigated twice a year. There sources covering her comments are overwhelming and it continues to be mentioned as part of the subject’s public profile. The arguments made against inclusion continue to focus on considerations like whether the characterization of her remarks was “politics” and misinterpretations of the standard set by WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump's attacks on Omar

The current wording criticism from Donald Trump puts Trump's vitriolic tweets and lies on the same level as responsible criticism. In keeping with the descriptions in the main body, I've changed this to false and misleading claims by Donald Trump. NightHeron (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron, I reverted this per WP:BRD, especially for the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Malerooster, what?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron I also feel that just "criticism" is rather weak. His tweets or comments on her were a bit more than just criticism. Criticism is rather neutral and does not necessary mean it was "bad", yet the stuff that Trump said was rather racist and blunt (and wrong). So perhaps acerbic criticism is better or even something in the line of blatant criticism?Malerooster what do you think?Garnhami (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Garnhami, what is wrong with what NightHeron said, "false and misleading"? Also I dont understand what Malerooster was trying to say. Were you trying to reference WP:BLP or WP:BRD.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I took the terms "false and misleading claims" directly from section 6.5 of the main body: He [Trump] made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar. NightHeron (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to Trump, numerous articles now use the terms false/and or/ misleading as a WP statement. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What were the "false and misleading claims"? NightHeron, our job as editors is not to shill for the article subject. You need to calm down. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, You actually need to calm down. Stop accusing others of bad faith. Also, your question is already answered in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede?

Should this material, or some variation on it, be included in the lead? Based on a reading of the article, it summarizes, for reference, the middle paragraph of this section, plus this section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a previous RFC about this topic, but, as noted above, it was tainted by sockpuppetry, and events have changed since then regardless.

• Exclude. It was, comparatively, a short-lived controversy that is relatively minor compared to her overall bio; while it is occasionally still mentioned in passing, nothing about it suggests that it a significant or defining enough moment to go in the lead, and the weight given to it is disproportionate to other, comparable aspects of her bio (eg. the massive amount of harassment and threats she received in the time since.) Its inclusion in the lead is therefore extremely WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Not significant enough to be in the lead. Tradedia^talk 09:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude per RECENT and doesn't pass the 10 years test.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:UNDUE. In other cases of political figures who faced accusations of anti-semitism, either it's covered in the main body but not in the lede (see Jesse Jackson) or it's not covered at all (see Donald Trump). (In the above discussion User:Objective3000 gave 3 sources about anti-semitic remarks by Trump.) NightHeron (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What about Jeremy Corbyn? That's a bit of a hole in your claim.HAL333 23:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of other US political figures who have been accused of antisemitism. Isn't it strange that the US President used blatantly antisemitic tropes, he did not (as far as I'm aware) ever apologize for any of it, it was covered in The Washington Post, CNN, and elsewhere, and there's nothing in the Donald Trump article about it? And yet some editors want to fight tooth and nail to get the accusations against Omar into the lede of her BLP? NightHeron (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude – There is no evidence that she is anti-Semitic. Saying something stupid and then apologizing for it is not lead-worthy. WP:RECENTISM WP:UNDUE O3000 (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Nothing has changed since the last one. Antisemtism controversies are still the defining part of her public image and the most notable part of her national profile. Additionally, I contest the neutrality of this RfC, as it makes unfounded claims the original was tainted by sockpuppetry and thus invalid. This is unacceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 13:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are an unusual number of blocked accounts in that RfC. And, I'm a bit surprised at the close. O3000 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to challenge a closure, this is not the proper place to do it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but I didn't challenge an RfC closure. Other folk are challenging this one. O3000 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude This is definitely not lead worthy at this time. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude but certainly have coverage in the body. As much as her critics tried, this is not a defining characteristic of Rep. Omar's life. There have been no (despite Fox News' best efforts) new incidents of late, either. Zaathras (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Factually untrue. There actually have:

• ILHAN OMAR FACES FRESH ACCUSATIONS OF ANTI-SEMITISM OVER MICHAEL BLOOMBERG TWEET
• ILHAN OMAR, RASHIDA TLAIB, JEREMY CORBYN TOP LIST OF WORST ANTISEMITES

Additionally, the Minneapolis newspaper The Star Tribune noted the issues earlier this month in a profile of the upcoming primary race. These have been just in the last two months. The issue isn’t gone or dead - it’s ongoing, and it’s her defining trait in the public eye. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Two of your three sources refer only to the old statements, not to anything new. The third one concerns Omar's recent tweet about one billionaire (Cooperman) supporting another (Bloomberg). Calling that anti-semitic because both are Jewish is far-fetched. In the Democratic primary campaign Omar opposes Bloomberg but supports Sanders, who is also Jewish. NightHeron (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion does not outweigh what reliable sources say on the matter. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, there are no reliable sources that say her tweet about Bloomberg support is anti-Semite.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would add to that calling support for BDS anti-Semitic is highly controversial. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Controversial to whom, O3000? We don't decide what's controversial or what's not, the sources do. And SharabSalam, I've already linked the Newsweek article discussing the accusations of anti-semitism for the Bloomberg comment which also references her comments earlier this year. Arguments/votes based on provably false assertions do not/should not carry weight here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Controversial according to RS, obviously. Are you claiming that a Congressperson voting against the anti-BDS bill is an anti-Semite? Is Debbie Dingell an anti-Semite? And the Newsweek article added: Dylan Williams, the senior vice president of pro-Israel group J Street, responded to Harkov saying her comment is "exactly the kind of bad-faith, weaponized accusation that has clouded and eroded understanding of the very real threat posed by anti-Semitism." This is a BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant and off-topic. The controversial comments that led to the accusations of anti-semitism referenced in the lead had nothing to do with her support for BDS. They were about her comments regarding Jewish-American pro-Israel lobbying groups, the "all about the Benjamins" and "pledge loyalty" remarks. The fact that the arguments for exclusion consistently veer off-topic instead of directly answering responses with source support is a major sign of how logically weak they are. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't bring it up. Toa Nidhiki05 linked to an article calling her one of the top 10 anti-Semites in the J Post using that as an example. Are you saying his argument is logically weak? O3000 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the deceptive "factually untrue" was addressed to my comment, I will reiterate the comments by others; 2 citations regarding the old, already covered Tweet, and the supposed one about Bloomberg failing to gain any traction outside of conservative talking heads. And also to respond to the comment below about "wait a year", rather than squeeze a 3rd comment into that section, that doesn't seem to be a binding decision but rather just an opinion. Zaathras (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Per User:Thryduulf in the original RfC:

I would suggest though to wait at least a year or until there is another significant event they are involved with.

• Given that a year has not passed and there have not been more significant events that have raised this into question, I'm requesting a procedural close of this poorly-unformatted and non-neutral RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion is not a reason for a procedural close. There have been eight !votes in seven hours. Calling for a close when you are the only include !vote does not look good. O3000 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

!votes do not matter. Very few are offering any sort of actual reason not to include it beyond not liking it or not agreeing with the criticisms (which is actually what happened in the first RfC, and those non-policy based !votes were wisely ignored). Interestingly, as far as I can tell, nobody from the previous extensive discussion has been notified, which is a very poor look. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

They are all policy-based. It is completely RECENT in the lead of a BLP and does not pass the 10 years test.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Merely saying that it is non-neutral doesnt make it non-neutral. The RfC is absolutely neutral as there is no proof or sign that shows it is non-neutral.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is out of process and should be closed. Any RfC on this subject should directly reference the prior RfC and ask one of two main questions: 1) Has the anti-semitism controversy been eclipsed entirely by another controversy? The answer here would be no based on recent reporting and any editor voting "yes" should have to provide sources. 2) Has the amount of time specified in the prior RfC passed? Of course, the answer here, too, is no. The stipulated wait time for another RfC was one year.

1) The prior RfC was not "tainted by sockpuppetry." There were several dozen editors participating. If there were a couple of illegitimate accounts on either side, it is irrelevant because the consensus was never based on a vote count. I find it shocking that, all of a sudden, an editor objecting to the content finds a frivolous reason to summarily dismiss a substantial discussion. 2) Editors keep repeating the argument that the controversy has "faded." However, this is not a contention with any support in the sources. First of all, the anti-semitism controversy still created at least a plurality of the coverage she's received over the course of her career. WP:DUE is based on proportion, not the weekly headlines. Even still, this argument fails because mainstream outlets continue to reference this as recently as last week and last month. 3) A lot of the comments made by editors arguing vociferously to remove this comment are highly concerning. SharabSalam has repeatedly referenced a "right-wing Israeli conspiracy" as the reason for the accusations of anti-semitism. This has no support in the sources. NightHeron has claimed that the controversy has been "overblown" and is "political." This is not something that is supported by the sources. Other editors have said that noting her remarks were criticized as anti-semitic is basically akin to calling her anti-semitic. This is, of course, not true. Consensus is never a vote count, and this thread should be a prime example of the reason why. The most logical arguments prevailed in the prior RfC. Opinionated arguments without support in the sources should never determine content, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen here. Further, I don't appreciate some of the tactics being used by editors opposing the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Having not participated in that old discussion, I have had to peruse some of the people involved. The RfC initiator himself was blocked as a sock, and his master sock also voted in the discussion. There are 2 "include" participants permanently blocked for unrelated things, and an "exclude" voter, user Magherbin, blocked for socking, but it appears to be unrelated to this article or even tropic area. Would you like to either revise your "either side" assertion?

The Guardian citation had a brief mention of the earlier incident, discussed in the larger context of Rep. Omar and MP Dhesi having to endure, quote, "vicious rightwing attacks" because of their ethnicity. The Newsweek citation is a fat nothingbuger that has gained no traction outside of Tucker Carlson and similar. What is far more notable is how Rep. Omar's every word is hyper-scrutinized, which ironically leads to situations like her GOP challenger being permanently kicked off Twitter. Summation, you have not proven to us who the charges of antisemitism have been sustained this past year, something which I feel would be required to classify it as "defining", thus worthy for the article opening. Zaathras (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that the socking was determinative, which it almost certainly was not given how limited it was, there is no reason to overturn a discussion involving several dozen editors. The closure wasn't based on vote counts, and so the presence of a single duplicate vote (as you noted, the other was banned for conduct unrelated to the RfC).

You and others have made the argument that the accusations of anti-semitism are somehow not relevant anymore and no longer covered in mainstream sources. This is provably false. Whatever "context" they are mentioned in, the fact that they are still referenced as part of her public profile clearly gives the comments continued weight under any definition of WP:DUE. Even if the comments weren't being referenced regularly, they would still compose a huge portion of the coverage that she's received. But they are. And the fact that when her name comes up, the anti-semitism accusations are frequently mentioned, clearly shows that they still are one of the most noted elements of her public profile. The lead is supposed to include all of the most frequently referenced or important elements of a public figure's profile, including controversial ones, which is required by MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the position of those who disagree with you. We're not saying that the accusations of anti-semitism are somehow not relevant anymore and no longer covered in mainstream sources. We're saying that those accusations are not of sufficient long-term importance to justify including them in the lede. If we really believed that they are "not relevant anymore," we'd be arguing to remove them from the main body, which nobody is.

Please read the source you cite from last week. That source supports my earlier statement that attacks on Omar are political and are overblown. It says that Omar has for the last year been the target of vicious rightwing attacks, not least by President Trump. Of course, there are many other sources that also support my statement, but it puzzles me that you claim my statement is unsupported by sources when it's even supported by a source that you just cited. NightHeron (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for this discussion initiator, but IMO they are not suggesting the sock puppet antics invalidate the previous discussion, they are just mentioning it as one contributing factor to this new discussion. The main point is that it is not a major aspect of Rep. Omar's life. Your "provably false" harping is, itself, false, I'm afraid. Brief mentions in a source that is covering other things, e.g. the Guardian piece, do not show sustained coverage. The recent Tweet about Bloomberg is a blip that is already fading as no reputable media sources have picked up up in a major way. Contrast this to the incident from earlier this year where she came out and admitted fault, and the criticism came from all parts of the political spectrum. That's in the past now, and as time goes on, we re-evaluate the importance of issues and circumstances in the life of a BLP subject. We're at the point now of WP:UNDUE. Zaathras (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: The fact that you are drawing a connection between "vicious right-wing attacks" and criticism of her comments as anti-semitic from reliable sources is exactly the problem. That's an inference that YOU are making, not one supported by the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reporting on the accusations of anti-semitism. That's obviously not the same as your words criticism of her comments as anti-semitic from reliable sources. Sources do support the statement that the vicious rightwing attacks and the overblown accusations of anti-semitism are related. Here's an excerpt from section 6.5 of the Ilhan Omar article: He [Trump] made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar, including allegations that she had praised al-Qaeda, argued for leniency with ISIS recruits,... The crowd reacted by chanting, "Send her back, Send her back." Trump later described the crowd as "incredible people, incredible patriots" and accused Omar of racism and antisemitism. On July 19, Trump claimed without evidence that Omar and the rest of The Squad had used the term "evil Jews". NightHeron (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zaathras: If you have to bend over backwards and redefine words to accuse another editor of a false statement, you probably shouldn't. The assertion you made was that the comments she made earlier this year have not received continued attention. However, multiple mainstream news sources continue to reference the comments as part of her public profile. That meets the very definition of sustained attention. (Provided above). If it wasn't significant, it wouldn't be mentioned. But it is. When something is repeatedly referenced by multiple reliable, well-known publications, WP:DUE is satisfied. Not that we don't already have enough material from earlier this year to satisfy that already. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I barely have to lift a finger to rebut your lamentable arguments, much less contort one's spine. Casual, sentence-long mentions of the incident as background info for an article on another subject entirely, as in the Guardian citation, are not "sustained coverage". Sustained coverage would be citations that directly speak of the old event in detail. Zaathras (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You are applying a standard that does not reflect the relevant policies. Both publications call back to her comments in a new context. WP:DUE holds that material published in reliable sources is fit for inclusion. The fact that an event is regularly referenced back to in new coverage is a key indicator that it still holds lasting significance and is a part of the subject's public profile. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a "new detailed piece" about her comments. Further, MOS:LEAD holds that we are to include {tq|prominent controversies}} in the lead. It is indisputable given the coverage that the anti-semitism remarks were a prominent controversy. The fact that we still have sources that discuss it shows that the consensus reached in March was correct, and it absolutely should not be removed based on the spurious grounds argued here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not a prominent controversy, it is a blip of a thing that happened near a year ago, and you rolled the snake eyes on getting an RfC initiated by a sock puppet, voted in by his other puppet, contributed to by at least 2 banned editors, and closed by an extremely questionable admin who judged a consensus that wasn't actually there. I am applying a standard of not only common sense but also adhering to WP:BLP (which you seem to be cavalierly ignoring), but striving to NOT label a person an antisemite for a single utterance of an antisemnitic canard. The coverage has not persisted in this since the original took place, you can't just make things up that are not there. It is best left mentioned in the body of the article, and that is all there is to it. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest you drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The "snake eyes" metaphor is uncalled for. WP isn't about winning. In a discussion of 30+ people, the fact that some may have been banned for unrelated conduct is irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the editor who opened the discussion cast a sock vote, but I don't see how that invalidates a discussion that took place over several weeks and involved a wide swath of the community. I'd also suggest you retract your comment about the "extremely questionable admin." What makes them questionable, that you disagree with their conclusion?

Further, whether something is a "blip" or significant is determined by its treatment in sources, not the subjective opinions of editors. This is a fundamental policy concern that your comment misses entirely. WP:BLP does not mean purging an article of negative information, it means ensuring that all information, negative and positive, is properly sourced. The dozens of sources in major national outlets on this, from March to now, demonstrate prominence. I'm not going to respond to the combative snarky arguments or other conclusory statements. I'm content to let the arguments on this page and the sources provided speak for themselves. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. 19920, your attitude and aggression in this discussion and others is the very epitome of "wp:battleground", so, kindly "cast out the beam out of thine own eye", sir. Secondly,. as I have stated on several occasions, this event was a moment earlier in the year, now past, and no longer suitable for the lead. You can't keep insinuating someone is a raging antisemite..as you are doing to Rep. Omar...without reliable sourcing to support that. This is the last time I will address you on this matter. Zaathras (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, the editor who started the previous RfC (ModerateMikayla555) is a sock of Darryl.jensen. And, the RfC originator !voted under both names. Icewhiz, and Wumbolo are also indeffed. IIRC, Icewiz by arbcom related to anti-Semitism attacks. Sir Joseph received a block one day after his !vote for accusing another editor of anti-Semitism. He was blocked again for calling a second editor anti-Semitic. How about we just stop these efforts to kill an RfC not started by a sock and see how it turns out? O3000 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • O3000 - see WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED re: your references to SJ. No reason to talk about other editors in this RfC. Better yet, this discussion needs to be hatted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, the question was asked and I answered it. And don't even think of selectively hatting a discussion again. If a discussion should be hatted, it should all be hatted -- not just the parts you don't like. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would note that the closer says "if the significance decreases over time then this discussion can and should be revisted". There is no proof that this is still a significant notable event. And she has apologized for that. We have Trump and his political allies accusing her of being anti-semite, Trump who has said tons of racist things like according to his former lawyer he said every country that black people rule is a shithole also that black people would never vote for him because they are too stupid. Also when he said to Jews that they should vote for him to protect their wealth etc. The Trump and his political allies false and misleading accusations should not be given any weight in this BLP article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude. I believe that there is not adequate information and coverage to support language of this type.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If we all bury our heads in the sand an ignore the sources, it's easy to say there aren't any. But the simple fact is that her comments received extensive coverage in all major national outlets, and continue to be addressed by reliable and mainstream sources. This kind of reasoning doesn't relate in any way to the standards set by WP:DUE or MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is time for you to stop insulting other editors and bludgeoning the process. O3000 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: There is no insult in my post. Don't put words in my mouth. However this discussion comes out, there are numerous sources that covered and continue to cover the comment controversy. To base a consensus off of a lack of a sources would be to rely on something patently and easily proven wrong. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump accusations such as saying that Ilhan Omar says "evil Jews" or his political republican allies saying that her tweet about Bloomberg-Cooperman tweet was anti-Semite are no proof of coverage.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Include. The fact that the Star Tribune discussed the issue [7] in an article that was focused on a different Omar-related topic shows that this is of lasting significance and is strong evidence that it will pass WP:10YT. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That Star Tribune article just makes a passing reference (less than a sentence) to the controversy caused by tweets of last February. Hardly a strong case for inclusion in the lede. NightHeron (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If it weren't significant, they wouldn't even bring it up. Yet in summarizing her public profile, they include the following sentence: And a series of controversial comments and actions, including tweets that were widely condemned for relying on anti-Semitic language and lingering questions about her marital history, have attracted scrutiny and criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Really? Newspapers often bring up matters that are not significant enough for the lede of a BLP -- for example, lingering questions about her marital history in the Star Tribune's sentence you quote. NightHeron (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant comparison. We have three reliable mainstream sources in this thread alone, including the Star Tribune, that all make recent reference to the anti-semitism controversy in summarizing her public profile. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Include It seems that we're going through with yet another RfC, so I'll vote despite my concerns about process. The proper standard to apply is 1) whether it is a prominent controversy and 2) whether it has lasting significance per WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD. The degree of coverage from the time the comments were made to now makes shows that it is prominent. The fact that it this matter occupies such a large portion of the article reaffirms this; the lead is supposed to be an accurate summary of said content, controversies and all. As recently as two weeks ago, mainstream outlets like the Guardian and Newsweek continue to reference her remarks in the context of her being accused of anti-semitism. This continues to be a significant part of her public profile. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Include - it belongs in the lead of the article. Adding ^{18:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)}...as a political figure, her views carry far more weight than the views of other less notable people who are not lawmakers, and that is why I believe significant views, including how she is perceived by others, definitely belongs in the lead properly attributed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This principle you're advocating does not seem to be policy or general practice on Wikipedia. As pointed out during the above discussion, Trump has used anti-semitic tropes on several occasions, and this has been covered by The Washington Post, CNN, and other media. However, the article Donald Trump does not even include this in the main body of the article, let alone the lede. NightHeron (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:WEIGHT, see Vox article which states: "But given her previous comments, the latest remarks struck many observers as playing into well-worn anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish attachments to Israel making them disloyal to the United States. Some were no longer inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt." See WSJ article in which she ^{Clarify: 22:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)} Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated: I once opened a speech by confessing to a crowd of Jews that I used to hate them." - Ali's concern being that like her, Omar was born in Somalia and was very young when she was exposed to Muslim anti-Semitism, questioning if Omar could overcome her prejudice. How the material is presented in the lead is another matter, and should be handled by qualified editors who are familiar with NPOV, WEIGHT & DUE. I see no need to debate my iVote further. Happy New Year! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too. But please be careful about attribution of direct quotes. The statement from the Wall Street Journal was not her statement, but rather a statement by the author of the WSJ opinion piece, Hirsi Ali, who is also originally from Somalia and at present is a conservative critic of Omar working at the Hoover Institution. In her opinion piece Hirsi Ali confesses her own earlier anti-semitism (that's what your quote is) and speculates that perhaps Omar, before she immigrated to the US as a child, had also been exposed to a lot of anti-semitism in Somalia. Hirsi Ali's speculation is not a reason to include this material in the lede. NightHeron (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just for clarification, you are voting for inclusion in the lead, correct? Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Yes, added lead for clarity even though the RfC is about inclusion in the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 02:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Understood. I just want to ensure that we are precise given the apparent tendency of RfC's on this matter to be challenged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC) What tendency? The previous RfC was started by a sock, and that isn't even the reason for this one. Name another. Your snarks and bludgeoning are not helpful. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC) I wanted confirmation that the vote was for inclusion in the lead. He provided it. Drop it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Didn't think you could name another. I suggest that striking your comment would have been the correct action -- as opposed to hiding it. WP:CIVIL. O3000 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• EXclude. Hi, passing through. When you run an RfC, it behooves you to take your best evidence and make it really easy to digest. If this is a defining facet of her career, worthy of inclusion in the lede, it should have both extensive coverage in the text (to be worth paraphrasing in the lede) and for an article of this length, summative sources. What throws me is that the current article text lingers on minor details of the controversy, seemingly dragging out sentiments that could be said in a fraction of the space, giving much heat but no light, and that's before getting to the choice of sources and comparisons to the UK. The current lede language about her anti-Israel stance is straightforward enough. The claims of antisemitism because of that stance are much shakier. I'd like to see even just the best two quotes from mainstream sources that unquestionably support the diff in question—that aspersions of antisemitism are a core aspect of Omar's public profile. Because I'm not seeing that in the diff's NYT source either. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Include It seems to me that if you're going to have statements such as She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, other harassment and mention of her disdain of Israel, then her anti-semitism should be included to balance those things out. NPOV and all that. — Ched (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what anti-Semitism? Your comment about balance seems to suggest that she is anti-Semitic and perhaps deserves death threats, conspiracy theories, other harassment. This is still a BLP and that doesn't sound like NPOV. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ched: Omar has been accused of antisemitism. It's an accusation, not a fact. Some statements of hers from last February unknowingly (according to her apology) evoked anti-semitic tropes. Whether other statements of hers -- criticizing Israeli government policies, supporting BDS, and her tweet about Bloomberg -- are anti-semitic or not is disputed. So please do not refer to her antisemitism as if it were a fact. Also, opposition to Israeli policies under Netanyahu is not disdain of Israel any more than opposition to Putin's policies is disdain for Russia or opposition to Boris Johnson's policies is disdain for England. NightHeron (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to debate as you wish, I simply responded to a RfC and posted my view. I don't do political debates. HOWEVER - there is NOWHERE that I have "suggested" that ANYONE DESERVES death threats. Please exercise caution in your insinuations. — Ched (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

:: Wow, accusations of wrongdoing are needed to "balance out" the fact that she's received death threats and harassment? I guess I don't need to ask which side of gamergate you were on, chad. 2600:1014:B1B1:2C5E:60E3:2626:8878:E624 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. The material referenced outlines the events in Wikipedia's voice, and to achieve WP:NPOV, the subsequent apologies for the remarks and the reactions to the apologies need mentioning, and that is all too muddly for the lead section. Furthermore, adding the referenced material to that specific paragraph would conflate said material with her stances on Israel, which would also violate the two latter policies I cited. KyleJoan^talk 15:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per Czar -- I understand that for people of a certain political perspective, this is the most important thing about Omar, but in fact it's basically a not very interesting Twitter spat that seems to have little lasting impact. The relevant policy is WP:DUE. --JBL (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Understand that your opinions about whether it was a "spat" or "interesting" are not what matters. Reliable sources treated the event as significant. It might be helpful if you refactored your argument to better reflect what WP:DUE means. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please cease badgering everyone in this discussion who disagrees with you. —JBL (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - Aquillion says it better than I could. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude- Definitely include in the body, but doesn't seem significant enough for inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• The proposed addition redundantly restates what was already said, making the lead less concise:

  A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies. Some of her comments in public appearances and through social media have been criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes of Jewish money and power fueling support for Israel, particularly through what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies.

This would be a more balanced summary of the more nuanced discussion in the article body:

A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies. Some of her comments in public appearances and through social media have been criticized as drawing on antisemitic tropes, but Omar disavowed antisemitic tropes she unknowingly used, and progressive Jews have supported her. — wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

’’’Comment’’’ - well done. I would support wbm’s more balanced summary if such an option became available. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the "tropes she unknowingly used" line is part of her statement. It is wrong to restate her apology in Wikipedia voice. I also don't know where the bit "but has support from progressive Jews" comes from. This reeks of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

1. The point is that Wikipedia is unbalanced if it says "her comments have been criticized" in a way that implies they were universally criticized, and denies the inclusion of her response to the criticism – Omar "disavowed antisemitic tropes she unknowingly used" – does putting it in quotes put it in her voice? That may not be an exact quote, but it's at least a close paraphrasing that communicates her intent.
2. "Across the street, a smaller group of counter-protesters organized by progressive Jewish organization IfNotNow supported Omar; "I’m just sick and tired of seeing this one part of the Jewish community try to silence those who criticize Israel,” one said." — wbm1058 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to quote her apology in describing the controversy. In fact, she didn't even offer a full apology based on what the sources reported. Earlier versions of this page noted she apologized for some remarks but not others. It is very simple: "Several of Omar's remarks on Israel have been perceived as drawing on anti-semitic tropes. Omar has apologized for some but not others." The sources are near universal in describing the remarks. It has nothing to do with whether or not some people support her.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You keep using the word "apology", implying that Omar is guilty of antisemitism. I take her response as a "not guilty" plea, and don't expect her to apologize for something she doesn't feel guilty of. Wikipedia is biased against her if it denies her the right to a response.

Sorry this isn't going anywhere. Exclude as proposed. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Color me unsurprised. No one is "denying her right to a response." The fact that she apologized was included in the original language, but sources noted (and so did the article) that it was only a partial apology. I don't know where you're getting at with this "not guilty" stuff, but it reads as if you're just being flip. Where else on Wikipedia would it be appropriate to note that a politician was criticized for a controversial set of statements, but juxtapose that with "but they didn't mean it" and "and they still have lots of support from people who like them!" Ridiculous, and not in compliance with NPOV. Further, I'd suggest you take a second look at the sources. The vast majority of them described her comments as drawing on anti-semitic tropes, near universal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

She apologized for using a Semitic trope. She did not apologize for criticizing a country. That is a right I hope all of us retain. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Enough wisecracks. Neither statement (the tweet and the "pledge allegiance" remarks at a later forum) was about Israel specifically, if that's what you're referring to. Both were about Jewish-American lobbying groups supporting favorable policies toward Israel. She apparently apologized for the tweet but not the public forum remarks. Source: NYT, March 5, 2019. That said, I'm fine with noting that she qualified her apology. Again, that was part of the original language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No one should have to apologize for criticizing lobbying groups. O3000 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And here is the WP:SOAPBOX problem I've been talking about. It's nice that you have your own strong personal opinions on this matter, but your politics (nor mine, nor anyone else's) have no place in this discussion. What matters here is what the sources have covered and how they have addressed it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are the one on a soapbox. You are the one that characterized her apology as "qualified". I haven't seen any RS that says anything like what you are suggesting. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by No one should have to apologize for criticizing lobbying groups.? What policy are you referencing there? Sounds like you're saying she shouldn't have to apologize for the remarks because you think they were fine, and therefore, based on your personal opinion, the remarks aren't significant. Let me remind you ofWP:DUE which states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources...Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. As for her apology, I already provided you with a source. She said she apologized for her "wording" but reaffirmed the sentiment regarding lobbying groups. Whether you want to call that "qualified" or "partial" is irrelevant because the gist of what I'm saying, and the wording that was originally settled upon in the article, is supported by the sources. As is the fact that this is a prominent controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether you want to call that "qualified" or "partial" is irrelevant.... I'm not the one that used the words partial and qualified -- you are. She apologized for something she said, using a trope. She did not apologize for something else she said, criticizing lobbyists and a foreign government's actions, as do most politicians. I don't see any RS saying that makes this a partial or qualified apology. It's two different subjects. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)]

She apologized and then "reaffirmed" (another source) her criticism of AIPAC regarding the "Benjamins" tweet. The sources do not note an apology for the "dual allegiance" remarks. It is inaccurate to say she apologized for all the offending comments, so any note of an apology must necessarily be qualified to reflect that. Haaretz in its coverage last month did not note an apology for all of the remarks either. There is simply too much reliable source material spread out over too many months for a reasonable editor to argue that the ant-semitic trope allegations is not a prominent and controversial part of her public profile. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point, you owe her an apology. In no way did she reaffirm her Benjamin trope. You added that. She continued to criticize a lobby and a government, as do many Jews. Enough. You don't appear to understand nuance. O3000 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I said she reaffirmed her criticism regarding AIPAC. She also said, "At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry.". Source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note There is a disturbing and consistent trend among exclude votes that I hope any admin reviewing this discussion will take note of. First of all, we have extensive sources covering this controversy. Here are three 1 2 3 full New York Times pieces on her remarks earlier this year, both the "Bejamins" tweet and her remarks at a public forum later. Here is the Newsweek article referencing those same comments just last month. For anyone to make a statement like There is no evidence that she is anti-Semitic. Saying something stupid and then apologizing for it is not lead-worthy. shows not only a total disregard of what the RfC is about, it shows that an editor is willing to weigh their personal opinion over sources, which clearly and unequivocally accorded her comments WP:WEIGHT given the duration and amount of coverage in high quality, national sources. The degree of coverage her remarks garnered exceeds any other attention she has received since entering Congress for a single event. The arguments that WP:RECENTISM means it should be excluded from the lead are equally dubious. Some of the same editors making such arguments also argue that the material regarding the Trump comments, which occurred after the anti-semitism controversy, belongs in the lead. WP:RECENTISM doesn't provide grounds for excluding material, nor should it be applied so unevenly. It is very difficult to say that we are following WP:NPOV to include her views on Israel in the lead but omit the prominent controversy regarding her expressions of those views. It is a terrible shame that this discussion has become so tainted with expressions of opinion about her remarks, about the subject herself, and with overwrought comparisons to other politicians that have little relevance here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Include Because there was apparently already consensus reached to include them by more editors than are present here. Edit5001 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Right. I'll also note that this RfC seems to disregard the prior RfC, without formally challenging it, because the opening editor in the prior wrongfully cast a sock vote. In a discussion with 30+ editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Include per User:Wikieditor19920 and the fact we've already had a settled RfC on this very issue. Consensus has already been reached and continually opening RfCs like this one to try to change something that editors disagree with is an abuse of the process. Editors in this RfC also seem to have a misunderstanding of what exactly the RfC should be about. The debate isn't about whether or not Ilhan Omar is an anti-semite, the debate is over whether allegations of anti-semitism are a major enough part of her public personality to warrant one sentence in the lead. I believe that they are as demonstrated by the numerous links provided to reliable sources over a long period of time that reference her alleged anti-semitism. Another problem is that editors seem to be citing other articles to support their viewpoint that allegations of anti-semitism shouldn't be included in the lede. First of all, that's not relevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Second of all, the specific examples cited by editors here are very different contextually. Jesse Jackson has had a long career where he has done many controversial and uncontroversial things. Ilhan Omar on the other hand has been a representative for exactly one year at the time of writing this !vote and anti-semitism as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict has been a focal point of basically her entire political tenure.

We also can't compare Donald Trump to Ilhan Omar either. While Donald Trump has been accused of being an anti-semite there's so many accusations of racism, sexism, bigotry, ableism, and whatever else you can think of that it's impossible to put any specific viewpoint in the lede. Heck, we have Racial views of Donald Trump solely devoted to discussion about his views on race. He's also had many, many other controversies that would be the lede of many other world leaders but since he has so many it would be WP:UNDUE to put anything but the most important in the lede. Anti-semitism allegations on the other hand play a much larger role in Ilhan Omar's career because she hasn't been accused of much else. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Chess posted: anti-semitism as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict has been a focal point of basically her entire political tenure. The text does not state that she is anti-Semitic and please realize that this is a BLP. Making the extraordinary claim that anti-Semitism is a focal point of her entire political tenure is not supported by RS and should be struck. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You're taking words out of context. The editor above also obviously referred to the anti-semitism accusations as allegations. And her stance on Israel-Palestine is the most prominent aspect of her political portfolio, as were her controversial remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on how this RfC is going. I see two problems. (1) One editor insists on getting into long, repetitive arguments with anyone who makes a comment supporting exclusion --- a classic example of WP:BLUDGEON. This discourages other editors from participating, because most editors would rather not waste their time in a long, repetitive debate. (2) Even if a consensus were reached for inclusion (which doesn't seem to be happening), that would be followed by another long, contentious debate about what the wording should be. Already editor wmb1058 proposed a wording that in my opinion would be fine if we opt for inclusion, but that wording was immediately attacked by the same editor who's carrying on a crusade not only for inclusion but for a wording that puts the subject of the BLP in a bad light. NightHeron (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron:, how many votes have you and 03000 challenged here? I assume you're not addressing your own behavior. The main problems with this RfC are violations of WP:FORUM, with statements like "she shouldn't have been criticized," and votes based on inaccurate statements about the degree of coverage. Further, you the subject of the BLP in a bad light as if information that might be construed as negative can't be included. Our concern is a balanced representation of the sources, not shielding the subject from controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given current consensus is to include it, we would just re-add the material agreed upon in the previous highly-discussed RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Given current consensus is to include it" Lolwut? This is currently running 2-to-1 to exclude the material. These things aren't strict votes as many people like to say, but numbers can't be outright ignored entirely either. One would need entirely exceptionally good arguments for inclusion and for all the excludes to be pretty bad, e.g. "lol I like Omar so keep it out!" to overturn the numbers. That ain't happening. Zaathras (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• The current consensus, as determined in the last RfC (which had over 30 participants), is to include it. It was removed out of process and in violation of that consensus. This RfC would simply re-add it - although, as noted above, it is very vague. This is yet another problem with this out-of-process and non-neutral RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• That is no longer applicable, we're having a new discussion here. If you think the person who eventually closes this discussion is going to add those participants + these participants, you are in for some sore disappointment, I'm afraid. Zaathras (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• As I've said before, this discussion is out of process - but regardless, !votes aren't how we decide things here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Out-of-process" is entirely your opinion, and not one widely-shared. And yes, these things aren't considered by a strict numerical tally, so, thank you for restating what I already said, I guess. But numbers also cannot be completely factored out of the equation, either. Zaathras (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude Passing mentions aren't significant enough to support this being in the lede. This would be undue coverage of a trivial accusation supported only by a small, vocal group of politically-motivated, disingenuous charlatans. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude, per Wikipedia:Recentism. Not a defining characteristic of the subject's political career. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. With a bit of time perspective, it has become clear that this is not a significant enough aspect of the subject to merit mention in the lede. I also find the procedural attempts to squash this RfC particularly unconvincing:

a. Thryduulf's mention of a one-year cool off period was a suggestion; demanding the wait be 365 days rather than ~10 months that has passed is transparently legalistic.

b. The previous discussion, which took place when this was more or less breaking news, was even then by no means an open-and-shut discussion and closure. There were many good arguments both for include and exclude. We are not ignoring that previous discussion by having another RfC; per policy consensus can change. VQuakr (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)